Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

I had to attend Church or Sermons of that kind, at school and sometimes in the school holidays. Perhaps what I did not realize at the time was that attending meant I was effectively a "captive audience". Given an alternative I'd decide that if I'd attended once or twice I'd attend all the times.

Sometimes you'd get a speaker with something interesting to say. Mostly, there would be various "sermons" from the bible about all sorts of things that I honestly had no clue as to their actual relevance but just seemed like oft-repeated phrases for their familiarity effect than anything very insightful. I did well in school at Religious Education, usually coming top in the class or year group, so it was not a question of not understanding it. But I found it so boring. I suppose looking back now, the essence of the practice was that "Whatever was the core idea" was there to "keep us safe" or "look after us" if we "behaved in the right way" eg prayers, good thoughts and actions and so on. This seems to be a role the present govern sermonizes to us about today, I would make the tentative comparision?

I always felt so sleepy in these sessions too. The essence of what was said, I never had a problem with. I think what made it boring was that it was beyond denial or beyond demonstration or example; it was like talking about something so very long ago and not very relevant to today. I actually really like churches and love seeing these old buildings all over the UK, and some of the materials in the Christian tradition as well as some works overall have a good balance of aiming for positive ethos and value system which I think are central to education, too. But that's when and after you strip out a helluva lot of "fluff" or "filler" or "packaging" that's complete garbage.

So this is all meandering preamble to the topic at hand in this blog: Security. I noticed in the previous blog that the Government was targeting families for the "Risk" factor that will hit hardest with them. Then we looked at the narrative shaping, "Good vs Bad (Obama vs Putin) and this leads to the other side: "Security" to go with "Risk". I just watched the complete garbage on offer on BBC Newsnight:-Would the UK Be Safer In Or Out of the EU?

"Newsnight
focuses on security and asks whether the UK would be safer in or out of
the EU. Would the UK's standing in the world change if the UK votes to
leave?"

If there's one thing I'm going to take away from this absurd politics today, that's bubbling away and beginning to boil over, due to the "fright" that Direct Democracy is giving the politicians, it's the complete crassness and propaganda of the politics that's taken for something serious or useful; it seems fit only for widely-read and familiar fiction or even good science-fiction:-

Quoting "General Jackson" or "Jens Stoltenberg" is absolutely absurd.

I think parading talk of security on the airwaves is a bit like being stuck in a church sermon: You have no actual choice on it but it IS for your own good! This was made very visible during the anti-war marches and protests against Iraq War during Tony Blair's Prime Ministership. Such matters as "Security" are too important for voters to get in the way of, it seems. Yet the results of these decisions don't actually in my opinion back up such an "elitist view" of this subject as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine all appear to point out: UK or EU, both.

"Having
lost the ability to legislate over huge tranches of activity that were
once the exclusive provenance of Parliament – mainly because the EU has
been handed the power – our Government has acquired the singularly
unhealthy habit of asking Parliament to impose binding legislation on
itself.

First it was the Climate Change Act, committing us to pay £1.3 trillion,
so I suppose we should be relieved that, this time, Parliament is only being asked to commit us to spending 0.7 percent of national income.

The deal, of course, is overseas aid – labelled in less PC times as
foreign aid. But just to make us feel a little happier about it a bunch
of Conservative MPs, led by Tory MPs Philip Davies and Jacob Rees-Mogg,
gathered together in a forlorn attempt to kill off the Bill.

However, it was indeed a forlorn hope, as MPs voted by 146 to six to
allow the Bill to proceed, and the legislation has now completed its
stages through the Commons.

As it stands, we are committed to donating £12 billion a year
"voluntarily", although this may have to go up by another billion over
the next two years as the new system for assessing GNI cuts in – the
same that has added £1.7bn to out EU contributions. This is a far larger
sum than is disbursed by any other EU state and, among the world's big
nations, only the US spends more.

The Financial Times
thinks it is "hugely to the credit" of David Cameron's government, and
his Labour predecessors, that Britain maintains a noble aspiration to
assist the world's poor. But at a time of immense pressure on public
finances, is says, it is reasonable to question the rigidity of the UK's
commitment to international development spending.

The figure, we are reminded, goes back to the 1960s when the World
Council of Churches declared that governments of the developed world
should devote 0.7 percent of their gross national income to
international aid. It was then adopted as a target by Mr Cameron's
coalition, helping to soften the Tories' "nasty party" image."

"It is all very well having these ex post facto confessionals, but the
point is – as we have argued here again and again - it was obvious at
the time that the campaign was failing and was doomed to failure. So
obvious was it that, in July 2008, we wrote a 12-part analysis called "Winning the War", setting out why we thought things were going wrong.
Now for these highly-paid incompetents to be admitting that they got
things wrong, when they were paid to get it right – and amply rewarded
with rank, baubles and privileges for so doing – is simply not good
enough. But the worst of it is that nothing will change. It has only taken the
Army five years as a corporate body to convince itself that it scored a
stunning victory in Iraq, despite the evidence I record in Ministry of Defeat. By the time the whitewash machine has completed its work, the Army will emerge unblemished from Afghanistan as well.
And nor do I buy the Oborne line
that this was a case of "Lions led by donkeys". For sure, amongst the
very small fraction of troops in theatre who actually saw combat, there
were some amazingly brave people. But there were crass, ill-informed
decisions made at all levels, and by all arms.
In terms of the bigger picture, in every theatre in recent times, the
Army has been badly led, badly generalled and has under-performed. One
warms to the idea of slashing the Armed Forces to the bare minimum. At
least then our politicians will no longer be tempted to deploy them. We
simply cannot afford any more of these corporate "victories" that the
Army insists on delivering."

This is all sounds and seems so familiar... roll on Referendum and then roll on Eurozone Treaty...

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

"One of the biggest claims by the Leave side in this debate is that “the
EU will have to do a deal with us” — a claim usually backed up by other
statements such as: “we’re the fifth largest economy in the world;
they’ll still want to sell us BMWs; German industrialists will be on to
Mrs Merkel immediately;” and “they sell more to us than we to them.”
Some Leavers also claim that precisely because our economy is so heavily
aligned with the EU, we may even be able to do such a deal over a
weekend."

If you remember, I pointed out that these people, in particular the politicians at the head of the Leave Campaign and especially the Vote Leave "lot" all seem to possess a similar "aura" of "talking sideways at subjects with full confidence"; as I tried to illustrate concerning the HM Treasury Report:-

What an impressive-looking pen.

First of all, to contribute to the careful analysis by White Wednesday:-

Haggling: This implies the problem is one of degree. It is not: Two different Rules Systems: EU Treaties vs Outside EU Treaties (Self-Governance).

Inferiority Complex: The foundation for this thinking is based on our politicians' obsession with projecting a "self-important" image onto the world of the UK or more accurately themselves to the British people upon upholding this "legendary status"; hence any "deal" must come with silver tassels and other special privileges befitting such "status anxiety". A lot of the self-deception in our politics and hence "bubble driven policy" seems to derive from this affliction.

Whining Tone: The actual communication comes across as asking for things that are not actually relevant, and hence any concession must be massaging fragile egos; namely token and gesture based: "Special Status" sounds all too snugly fitting... for such swaddling infants.

Dominance-Submissive Dynamic: The clip above from Game Of Thrones is worth considering; people projecting a kind of dominance or coercion is an unbalanced relationship, where I think actually all that is actually demanded is an EQUAL Relationship - by withdrawing orderly and in cooperation with the EU from EU Treaty Rules.

Did read these EU Treaty Rules but deceived and continue to deceive the British Public over the consequences of these rules.

Interesting, it was posited that the "Inferiority Complex" that may have been one of the major inputs into Britain opting to join the EEC back in the 1960's is a latent force at work still today, resorting to cowardice and a complete lack of courage in our politicians to face the factual feedback and revert back into their bubbles... as White Wednesday I think is careful in pointing out in the above blog post.

There appears however to be some "good people" attempting to do just this and put the facts first, such as The Sceptic Isle:

"The two pivotal words of the EU referendum campaign are “could” and
“how”. Every analysis of the consequences of Britain leaving the
European Union are heavily reliant on the word “could”, or similar words
like “might”. We will hear it endlessly right up until the vote. Brexit
could mean this and Brexit could cause that. What it entirely comes down to is how we leave the European Union.This is essential to keep in mind when considering the IMF warning that an EU exit could
cause severe damage. The warning said Brexit would ‘disrupt established
trading relationships’, and ‘disrupt and reduce mutual trade and
financial flows’. Such points of concern are of course based on the
consequences of leaving the Single Market without having concluded a
trading arrangement. The IMF warning is entirely contingent on the UK
unilaterally withdrawing from the EU or failing to make arrangements for
trade.I’ve argued repeatedly that due the conclusions of a vast multitude of analyses the Government will look to adopt the existing EEA based model
to protect the economy, facilitate negotiations and prevent disruption.
What the IMF is referring to is a worst case scenario that neither the
UK or the EU want or can afford politically or economically."

On one level it is all about risk if we use our "Left-Brain Thinking" adeptly. If we look at our "Right-Brain Thinking" complementary however, I'd argue that it's not merely risk, it's our "breaking through our own barriers" and putting aside this destructive force of "inferiority complex" that drives so much of our political (lack of) leadership and makes such cowards or "Donkeys Leading Lions" and the poor consequences that has a tendency to keep on leading towards?

What is something we can all agree on?

I'd suggest that we can all agree on what is written down in the rules that govern us. The Brexit Door produced an outstanding piece of work reflecting on this both for our own Democracy with reference to Tony Benn's famous five question and also with respect to how to message correctly in this campaign:-

One of the things you'll notice about King Joffrey/Vote Leave is the way in which both "grasp at things"; for all their self-styled indomitable shows of supreme confidence in themselves and their place in the world, if we look at Vote Leave to keep things on track:-

Better Deal/Reform For Britain!

The Public Demand Immigration Control of Borders for any Plan!

Don't worry we don't need a plan, we'll sort it all out after we leave!

The PM has done well under the circumstances lying to us all!

We need a Great Leader such as BoJo to lead us to the promised land! All hail!

Hannan, the breath-taking Orator of our times! Cummings the boy-wizard mastermind without a plan.

Anyone who has to say: "I am the King"...

This behaviour kind of reminds me of King Joffrey in the above clip: "Flipping out" reactions and edicts: It's delinquent and hence delusional. There's a short summary of Owen Paterson's Brilliant Brexit Patter by contrast:-

Paterson’s vision for a UK outside these uncertainties is one of a
self-governing, free-trading nation, a true part of the global family,
its international trade and participation no longer absorbed into the
EU.

There is no status quo. If the UK remains in the EU, it will be a
second-class citizen, and the EU’s political centralization will
continue, dragging the UK along with it. The eurozone, politically
integrated by 2025, will dominate the rest.

And how?

"Leaving the EU is not an instant commitment, but a process. There would –
and certainly should – be a long process of discussion before the
formal commitment to withdraw (and the two-year i-dotting period that
follows it) is given."

By redrawing and choosing to find new agreements on which rules we choose for ourselves and hence our future relationships with each other, hopefully for the better of all. God forbid we end up with more "King Joffrey"!

Qualitatively different arguments about Rules and Change In Rules and Rate of Change

Our own politicians as John Ashworth rightly observes, are the real problem even beyond the highly rational analysis that is readily available to anyone to help them come to their own conclusions in their own way.

Some quick eye-balling and it already gives a useful impression of the numbers racked up in reach or "exposure" Obama can generate; let alone any serious scraping of data or analytics from television or radio or other forms of mass media numbers. And it seems betting odds have shifted consequentially since Mr. Obama's intervention:-

Very well written and high in quality information (and indeed ratio of quality to quantity) but, in word form - only.

I've started dipping into it, and it's well written and informative. Yet even this booklet is a great barrier to accessibility by people; merely because of the difference above between the President of the United States and one of many books and many more words on this subject. Today Owen Paterson gave a speech concerning the EU and the Referendum:-

A good speech, convincing tone of voice, but little visual+ information

Again many good points were made. However, merely listening to the speech, I feel that it also is inaccessible, more words instead of the eye, the ear. And the youtube viewer count was only 100 views when I last checked. Strictly speaking for myself, I'd say Obama and Paterson are both adept at conveying a deep sense of conviction in the tone of their voices. More or less I can actually (or could) switch off my thinking brain and let my "creative"/contextual side of brain function take over (like autopilot) and "go with the flow of the voice" and generally pick up agreement signals how much I accord with my impression of the speaker already!!!

I'm not at all sure our present culture is very "suitable" on the RHS and nor is our education very "successful" on the LHS?

I think the Right Brain (as it's modelled for convenience) "comes more naturally" to people. The Left Brain requires a significant investment of "learning" to tackle complex information. Perhaps this disparity is a foundation for working on/with in future democracy and politics?

What we see above is that books and long speeches tend to narrow down the elements of communication. What President Obama is able to do so successfully is add that extra 55% of "body language" which it seems to me our Right Brains "love" so much! And I think the betting firms are reflecting this as opposed to the little "exercise" I contrived in the top image of "Spot The Odd One Out".

There seems to have been a huge amount of information today and that will require another blog to consider on another subject. The subject here is working out why people are so apparently "vulnerable" to politicians' tools of persuasion.

"Mario Cuomo famously said, “You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose.” There’s a lot to that, but a campaign designed to reassure (as the Brexit campaign must be) will need to include quite a bit of prose too."

Which I found from the link at EUReferendum.com courtesy of Dr. RAE North. It's a very good piece, not only citing "The Definitive Brexit Plan" FLEXCIT (and referencing/linking directly to it), but it's well argued and equally insightful using interesting ideas such as above, which neatly fits in with our idea about Right and Left Brain thinking. I'm tempted to quote the whole thing but must resist, again connecting:-

"To that end, Brexiteers need to explain why those risks are far less than the undecideds now fear, and a pretty good way to do it is—smelling salts—a plan. Brexiteers need to demonstrate not only why Brexit, but how."

We've had a lot of "Why?" from Leave Campaigners, the so-called "poetry/RHS Brain". But we've effectively had FALL! (or indeed FAIL!) on "How?" the so-called "prose/LHS Brain" for fear that voters won't "get it" given the discussion above, this all begins to fit together. And quoting another piece to use examples to illustrate this:-

"Many undecided voters, I suspect, have no great love for Brussels, but they are unwilling to take the risk (as they see it) of leaving the EU, a risk that the Bremainers are, naturally enough, playing up."

This comes after the below quote but the order or elaboration works this way: The current strategy as per the Legacy-News Media is:-

Obama for EU vs Putin for Leave. (Good vs Bad Narrative)

Vote to Remain for your children (risk-averse parents are finely-tuned to economic disruption given the extra burdens they're under with children and childrens' futures): This message is very RHS Brain and popular.

It's literally called: "FamilyFuture960.jpeg" from Gov.uk!

Making a nuisance of myself on twitter: Fighting RHS Brain with RHS Brain!

And here's the conundrum for the Leave side:-

"It’s true that the ‘leave’ campaign is not in a position to determine
how Britain’s departure from the EU would be negotiated. At the same
time, it does need to show that there are Brexit routes and that they
can be navigated in a safe and straightforward way.

I'm actually not at all sure who Lilico is, except he has the same "aura" as Vote Leave it always appears to me, and the total lack of "Intellectual Honesty" and hence "Message Discipline" seems to pervade all their messages as EUReferendum picked up on:-

Here we are talking about LHS Brain and it is particularly important at the "top level" of the campaign where supposedly the leadership and higher levels of learning will have for example read all the books and more in the opening image of this blog and/or better the ability to assort the information rapidly for quality and hence selection to people who rely on other humans to deliver their message accessing their RHS Brains more.

Sunday, 24 April 2016

Let's imagine X = Time. Y = Degree of Change (DELTA: Δ (large) or δ (small)) over time. The steeper the slope in the above graph the more rapid the rate of change is measured (ie increase in Y over time).

The marketer Matt Bailey described it as "a desire to see something done, but not enough desire to make it happen".

"Velleity is what keeps companies locked in this mindset of reporting
useless numbers. Desiring, even expecting to someday have an epiphany of
change, but not willing to change the mindset or the culture of
locked-in reporting to achieve it. Nor are they willing to ask the hard
questions in order to uncover what must be done."

"The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of
resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to
preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly
forward in a straight line."

There's a couple of ideas which can be applied to our arguments. Let's start with Rate Of Change:-

In the modern world, trading is increasingly organised at the global level. It involves bodies ranging from private sector rule-making organisations such as the ISO, to various quasi-governmental institutions under the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation.

This has had a growing effect on the logic (or lack of it) for remaining in the EU and it also informs the debate on what Out looks like. The activities of such global bodies are known collectively as ‘global governance’ (as opposed to ‘global government’). There is no single body in play, nor even a 2 coherent group of institutions. Instead the different functions are carried out by a range of organisations which have little in common. The proliferation and reach of global organisations in recent times reflects the advantages they offer to the global trading system. Together they are the real-world manifestation of the word ‘globalisation’.

These bodies have three specific advantages that the Bruegel think-tank once listed as follows.

They ensure more security and predictability than ad-hoc arrangements. Global rules provide core principles and legally enforceable commitments for all parties. The bodies also offer a forum for settling disputes.

Global institutions give a voice to all countries big and small and are accountable to these countries. Critics may complain with some justification about the lack full accountability but global institutions do ensure a degree of fairness and ownership which other solutions lack. In other words, they provide a certain stability to economic integration which would be lacking in a multipolar world where integration is driven by private stand-alone initiatives only.

Such institutions can be viewed as global ‘public goods’. This is because every time something new needs to be done, they don’t have to start from scratch. This cuts negotiation costs and avoids the long and painful process of defining a collective global response. Well-designed and well governed institutions, therefore, are an asset for all participants in the global economy.

As more and more issues are addressed at global level, the EU is steadily losing control over its own regulatory agenda. For example, more than 80 percent of the EEA acquis (and therefore the EU’s Single Market legislation falls within the ambit of existing international organisations and is thus potentially amenable to global regulation (see pie chart below).

Here is a useful description of the "globalization" process and indeed the formation of an identity for it concerning trade. This process is not well known and the rate of change is not well appreciated. In fact our old friend and useful metaphor which Dr. RAE North used can make another appearance:-

Crikey! I'm just waiting for holographic screens and 'information waves' leaving functions "deviceless" and "tubeless" - "extrapolating at this rate of change".

Now so much of the discussion of the UK's options is "EU-Centric" concerning the rate of change or more appropriately "inertia" of failure to change successfully that afflicts the EU. The two can be compared very broadly with respect to the "globalization" of tangibles that can be quantified and digitally so. The latter is with respect to politics which is a form of information that is much more challenging to deal with: Social Information. In fact the more complex the relationships the more "inertia" the system will inevitably build up.

"What is this fantasy? I suspect it's based upon "mixed-motivations":
Attempting to win votes is itself a kind of divorced reality of politics
from the facts themselves: Indeed we're right back where we started:
Big Ideas and the problems of presentation that themselves lead to
"other problems"."

It seems to me when the "Big Ideas" become the attachment of personalities who support such "Big Ideas" for whatever reason, maybe they have "invested" so much mental or other form of "capital" into these ideas. And here we see that this is the old form called "Vanity". It seems to me that there is possibly a great requirement to reorientate people's support and investment of belief and nowhere more so than this process which increases in magnitude via centralization of power that dominates and centralizes around SW1 (Westminster, Big Business (CBI) and News-Media), back to "The Road To Serfdom": People/Voters in servitude to ideas which do not serve us well; because they do not reflect a greater notice of what is actually happening in the world as opposed to what is happening in our own minds - or indeed the minds of a select few and their capricious exercise of their own Vanity and social information. This suggestion is beyond my own understanding (I don't have the expertise nor the experience), but what I can inform further on is that idea of globalization:-

Two broad observations: (1) High Quality Arguments and Experience of People talking (2) So Few People in attendance, comparative to this quality.

So for expediency and to take on board the advice to "stick to one argument well made" (Thank you!!); to select from my notes of the day the relevant information to the topic of this blog:-

1. Booker recounts the Trend of Thatcher on EU

From The Great Deception, we see an example or indeed "an experiment" of the situation when a politician who makes a big U-Turn over support of the EEC/EC/EU (and subsequently deposed). Christopher Booker mentions the key lesson of Jean Monnet the genuinely gifted "political fixer" to "GRADUALLY CHANGE" towards a Supranational entity; to which as far back as 1961 was aware of. Booker quoted: Hugh Gaitskell:-

"In a speech to the party conference in October 1962, Gaitskell claimed that Britain's participation in a Federal Europe would mean "the end of Britain as an independent European state, the end of a thousand years of history!" He added: "You may say, all right! Let it end! But, my goodness, it's a decision that needs a little care and thought.""

I want to point out that this lesson of "careful deliberation" (in our present time 41 years of EU Membership) also deserves such as "needs a little care and thought", too. Therefore there is no surprise from Semi-Partisan Politics: If The Remain Campaign Succeed In Cheating Their Way To Victory, Their Joy Will Be Short Lived. This rushed through referendum is an exercise of pure Vanity by the politicians and Establishment in power. In effect it shows their cowardice and lack hence lack of courage to "ask the hard questions" and apprehend the changes in the world outside their comfortable bubble world in Westminster (itself hollowing out atst as we'll see concerning the EU).

2. North compares the rate of change

I'm amazed at how prescient Sir James Goldsmith must have been having been recounted some of his own thoughts and words on this subject at the meeting:-

Sir James Goldsmith held a rally to reach 10,000 people. It is hoped that with the age of modern technology and internet distribution of information beyond social information barriers, that the video presentation of the day will reach many more than that number, to reflect the theme of this blog's discussion. I was just listening to today's Andrew Marr Show and both Tim Farron and Theresa May: The Bubble Illusion that they talk from within, and Sir James Goldsmith even points this behaviour out in the above clip back in 1997, let alone 2016! He even points out EFTA (European Free Trade Association).

I need to get back to Globalization, which Roland Smith manages to summarize so effectively and articulately above. Dr. RAE North suggests this "Rate Of Change" difference is our "Stokes Precept" EU referendum: strategy is the problem:-

"Nor is
there any recognition of the "Stokes precept", from Richard Stokes, the
Labour MP for Ipswich, who on 15 October 1940 told the House of Commons
in a debate on war aims that it "... is no use fighting for a negative
object. You must have a positive one, and the sooner that [is] stated
the better".

To gain a broader acceptance from the majority of the population that we
should leave the EU, we must be able to offer a positive object.
Simply to fight on the negative one of leaving the EU is not enough. And
just to argue for a referendum, without the first idea of how you would
win it, is suicide.

Those who refuse to accept this, who robustly argue simply for
unilateral withdrawal and expect the nation to rally to that cause, are
part of the problem – as much as those like Leadsom, who are arguing for
"fundamental reform". Egos really don't matter. It cannot be
emphasised enough that what counts is strategy."

There we see the "reason behind the reason" from the last blog: Vanity and the subsequent loss of power and loss of Sovereignty from the people to Parliament and thence to the Supranational EU.What is remarkable is the present hysteria and propaganda profusion that masquerades as "intellectual honesty" when it is pure unrefined ego and vanity on display. Booker pointed out in his speech the parlous state of this Referendum and we can understand exactly why that is the case when connecting the causes and contexts together to complete the picture:-

The superstitious medieval politics of today

It might be "Save The Children!" or spurious statistics written with a golden pen by a prestigiously titled "institution":-

Ok so the focus of this blog has been side-tracked again! But coming back to the main argument on the day:

3. Creation of a Genuine Single Market

If you notice, Vote Leave have variously advocated:-

A "Swiss-Style" Deal, better than either Norway or Switzerland

An FTA "ala S. Korea" or "What Mexico/Chile have got".

Scrap that, The British Option!

It's just like "The Canadian FTA" agreement.

Ok, from Belarus to Iceland to Albania, the Common European Trade Area!

Roland Smith articulately suggests perhaps any of these destinations are agreeable to Vote Leave, but what about: Idle musings: The EEA as a transition point or destination?Forget Vote Leave, let's look at a conceptual picture that abstracts the key/core concepts of a positive vision, a "Stoke's Precept":-

We can draw some inferences from this remarkably useful diagram from Dr. RAE North's FLEXCIT document:-

EU claims member states right of representation on global standards bodies

This means our influence is diluted per a "common position" by the EU hence not necessarily specifically per sector in the national interest.

The EU "Gold-Plates" some of the regulations that it "downloads" from the global bodies complicated the process.

It's indirect and mixes more complex politics with technical regulations thus we can refer to Rate Of Change graph above as product of the EU "inertia". And again as with complexity, more tendency towards "things going wrong" in general.

EFTA/EEA members have direct influence or representation over these bodies before they then feed back into the EU.

Global Regulation is driving "globalization":-

Here the arrow is indicating the increasing trend of globalization of standards and origins of various legislation "in action": In this "rate of change" argument, this is really where I wanted to get to and finish with:-

The quoted figures:-

70-80% of technical standards and regulations are made in Global Bodies

90-95% of these various technical standards pertaining to the Single Market have some form of "origin" in Global Bodies.

And the "Globalization" driver behind much of this "Network Effect" to increase World Trade:-

Hence in effect to come back to the talk and quoting by Christopher Booker, Roy JenkinsSpeech at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference centre (22 March 1999), quoted in The Sunday Telegraph (28 March 1999).:-

"There are only two coherent British attitudes to Europe:-

One is to
participate fully...and to endeavour to exercise as much influence and
gain as much benefit as possible from the inside.

The other is to
recognise that Britain's history, national psychology and political
culture may be such that we can never be other than a foot-dragging and
constantly complaining member; and that it would be better, and
certainly would produce less friction, to accept this and to move
towards an orderly, and if possible, reasonably amicable withdrawal."

And that brings us to:-

What both sides of the question: Remain and Leave both have to appreciate in their respective advocates is that:-

Rate of Change will continue to apply at different rates in different directions either Globalization or "Political integration towards Supranationalism": Hence the present Lisbon Treaty is not an end destination but as Roland Smith remarks a "transit" position on "Ever Closer Union" at the same time as Dr. RAE North points out: EFTA/EEA is an interim stage of FLEXCIT: The Market Solution "staged withdrawal".

I think we can put some powerful arguments forwards that measure a degree of change in the world that is important to feed into our decision-making processes as a nation or indeed functional democracy. What we currently see on display, the appearance without the substance of such is Vanity driving Velleity: A lack of positive change despite that particular phrase being such a favourite saying of our politicians and their poverty of prosperous ideas.

Friday, 22 April 2016

The above is a scene from the comedy movie Trading Placing starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd who both effectively experience "role reversals" in the other direction to the other. This scene is particularly poignant: The test of "social acceptability" by Eddie Murphy contrasted to the "deadbeat" Dan Ackroyd finally hitting his nadir on witnessing from the "excluded outside" in the driving rain and dark, looking in on the glitz, glamour and social upper-crust of society; separated by a pane of glass but for all the world, literally, now living in another world, remote and so far removed.

I think a large part of the fabric of modern politics that is distributed for consumption via our mass media, is not for it's content quality; it's information value and hence increasing public understanding, it seems to me it serves as much if not more so as a constant reminder (or reinforcement ie repetition) to people to "know their place": Namely any such exchange is both an informational and a social exchange. But in bulk I believe that the social exchange comes to dominate the actual information exchange: That which is socially expected and reinforced by these images, conversation and the like, becomes the overriding and lasting image or impression left on peoples' mentality of "what is politics and who is it done by?" For most people:-

It's done "over there removed from me."

It's done "by them who are above me."

There is an inherent assumption that those who take up our air-time or are invited to share their views in the lime-light in front of the broadcasting cameras, have somehow earned such an eminent position. Their achievements are the currency with which they deserve our notice or they are rewarded with others taking notice of them. I've long found it curious that actors often are called upon to take up the cause of "climate change", "world peace", "feminism", "palestine" and all the other idols that were pointed out so long ago by Francis Bacon in how people form bias in their thinking. Phony speakers promoting fake ideas. Why fake? I think there's a reason: One Big Idea is far more effective in drawing attraction from people than a series of interconnected and complex associations that more accurately reflects what we would suggest through scientific method is "objective reality" via independent, repeatable measurement that develop a current (but changeable) theory. When this process is "short-circuited" via such presentational problems as propounding "One Big Idea" we end up with something else too: Orthodoxy. In our politics today, such a process has been delivered.

This introduction is a little longer than anticipated. But let's now look at a particular example of a "Big Idea": The European Union (EU). First, let's reform this idea of "Barriers To Entry" one more time:-

In another movie such a symbolic barrier to entry is that of the "The Holy Grail" in the movie Excalibur:-

What is the secret of the Holy Grail?

I've wondered about how best to answer the question of our membership of the EU. How best? Given any number of different scenarios and people and numbers of people? If we look at the EU today, we probably all agree it's beset by troubles that appear unfathomable. An indication of such thinking is the recent Treasury Report EU referendum: HM Treasury analysis key facts. Here we see a symbol of power; like an image that we can see but we cannot comprehend. In fact this is an image, a repetition but magnified to a much larger degree of so much of our modern politics to "remind people" of their "outside/underneath" positions in our society. The above image of the "Holy Grail" I feel replicates this sensation or experience. I think for many many people the mere appearance of this image is enough to switch them off and supplicate helplessly and believe that "politics is a closed shop to them".

But equally today, anyone who genuinely is a seeker after knowledge can "quest" for such information on the internet: Sure it's hardwork but if you can remove your own personal bias and see things for what they are not for what they appear to be:-

I think the measures undertaken by The Treasury; the actions or intentions or indeed the underlying motivations behind such actions and hence intentions is far more revealing than the detail of the "story being told" / "song being sung" here:-

Social Acceptability: "So I said I must get out of these wet clothes and into a dry martini!" ("ahahahahahahahaa... !")

You only have to read Dr. RAE North's analysis in the above two blogs to determine the inherent actual value of such work done by the Treasury under George Osborne. But what we're really witnessing is again a gathering as pictured above: A purely social control convention being played in front of our eyes and into our ears.

This is "remark-able", but no more so than the "un-remark-able" that it represents due to it's high frequency repetition, and again repeated by Vote Leave in the form of Dominic Cummings, once again ably and incredibly usefully provisioned for view by Dr. RAE North:-

I might actually be impressed if all these people were working on a system whereby the best way to gradually educate people is to use the most flawed arguments so that people can then learn the mistakes and hence by these means put the pieces together as a coherent picture emerges... such is the scale of "insanity" presented:-

"Insanity. n. mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behaviour.

Insanity is a concept discussed in court to help distinguish guilt from innocence. It's informed by mental health professionals, but the term today is primarily legal, not psychological."

What is this fantasy? I suspect it's based upon "mixed-motivations": Attempting to win votes is itself a kind of divorced reality of politics from the facts themselves: Indeed we're right back where we started: Big Ideas and the problems of presentation that themselves lead to "other problems". Effectively in older language: "Temptation" or indeed other words within that, now, archaic territory.

My suggestion is that the politicians are the root cause of the problems visited on the UK and other European Nations.

"This
referendum is indeed a matter for the British people, and us alone. It
is not a matter for politicians. A referendum belongs to the people. It
is even less to do with any foreign politicians. Be they ever so mighty,
they have no business seeking to interfere in the internal politics of
our nation, and especially in our choice as to how we are governed.
Mr Obama nevertheless claims to be our "friend" but, for all his fine
words, not once does he address that central issue. This referendum it
is about how we, as a people, are governed. His proud nation went to war
with us, the British, over precisely that issue, throwing off the yoke
of the King and exercising their right to self-determination.

Of
all the people in the world, this is something President Obama should
understand - that this is indeed a matter for us to decide. He should
know instinctively that this is not a matter in which he should
interfere. A good friend would understand that. A true American
President would understand that without having to be told.

His naked attempt to influence the outcome of this contest, therefore,
is not welcome. It is not the action of a friend. It is most certainly
not the action of a President of the United States of America.

Obama
is welcome to meet our politicians. But it is ironic that he should
also come here to have dinner with our Queen - this the representative
of the monarchy which his own people have rejected. And yet, as he dines
in style, he bears a message to our people that we should accept a form
of government that free Americans would reject. They would doubtless
burn down the White House a second time if he attempted to foist it on
them.

The President should, therefore, shut
up. When he's had his dinner with our Monarch, he should get back in his
aeroplane and go home. He's not wanted here."

Tim Martin advocates more democracy by people to promote prosperity; Lord Ashdown advocates removing democracy to deal with "Big Ideas" by "Big Politicians".

What I found fascinating about the above, was the contrast between when someone advocates for "Democracy for people" compared directly to when someone from "Prestige & Authority" advocates, alternatively THOSE QUALITIES to determine and dictate decision-making choices to be made:-

"Big Ideas" promoted by Lord Ashdown:-

World Economy

War 99 years ago

European Union not "little ideas like UK"

"Serious studies from the respected institutions around the world"/ Obama

I've got to admit, this "talking down" stance by Lord Ashdown compared with Tim Martin's very small and simple idea about "letting people contribute" eg "the back of the envelope calculations suggested in the audience by one of the people present... !

The figure presented by this person is not the positive result so much as the fact he was able to contribute and offer an alternative story. Let's have more of this.

Indeed, comparing Tim Martin, he seemed fairly relaxed about expressing himself and making some contributions, while besides him Lord Ashdown seemed so very determined to hold forth and sermonize from on high!

Perhaps he's gotten very used to this form of communicating, from all the long years of being a politician as opposed to one of the people?!